Case law

Local 636 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Detroit Association of Plumbing Contractors

287 F.2d 354 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 22, 1961

Brown, Jr., Atty., National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent in No. 15,665 and petitioner in No. 15,707. Mr. Leslie W. … Heinz Co. v.

Powell v. Castaneda

390 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2005

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 455 (D.C.Cir.1999) (holding that an adverse employment action is a prerequisite to bringing a Title VII claim).

SWEDISH AMERICAN HOSPITAL v. Sebelius

691 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 2010

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by *85 mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

Office Employees International Union, Local No. 251, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

262 F.2d 931 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 29, 1959

The union asks us to set aside an order of the Board based upon a finding that, by certain picketing at Sandia Base, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the union had violated Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the National Labor Relations … The Board asks us to enforce the order. We find no error and the order will be enforced. See National Labor Relations Board v.

Poole v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

77 A.3d 460 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2013

Brown granted petitioner’s claim in its entirety. … See generally Munyan v.

Hobson v. Hansen

265 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 1967

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 , 74 S.Ct. 686 , 98 L.Ed. 873 . Defendants concede plaintiffs’ standing to contest the manner in which the Board administers the schools. … Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. [Board of] Police [v. City of Baltimore] Board, 15 Md. 455 .

Martinsville Nylon Employees Council Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, E.I. Dupont Denemours and Company, Intervenor

969 F.2d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 2, 1992

Printing Div. v. NLRB, - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2215, 2223-24 , 115 L.Ed.2d 177 (1991), citing Local Union 1395, IBEW v. NLRB, 797 F.2d 1027 , 1030-31 (D.C.Cir.1986); see The Idaho Statesman v. … See e.g., Carey Canada, Inc. v.

Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission, Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission, Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Intervenor. Sun Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Intervenor

329 F.2d 223 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 17, 1963

Wheeler v. National Labor Relations Board, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 255 , 314 F.2d 260 (1963). Compare Universal Camera Corp. v. … See National Labor Relations Board v. National Laundry Co., 78 U.S.App.D.C. 184 , 138 F.2d 589 (1943). 19 In Wheeler v.

Hanson v. OFFICE OF SENATOR MARK DAYTON

535 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2008

Indeed, Judge Brown, in her concurring opinion in Fields v. … Judges Sentelle and Griffith joined Judge Brown’s concurring opinion.

Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc. v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

718 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 1989

Weinberger v. … Nor, given that Congress has already enacted the veto provision under attack, is this a case like Brown v.

Koretoff v. Vilsack

601 F. Supp. 2d 238 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2009

. § 981.1 et seq., regulates the handling of almonds grown in California and is administered locally by the Almond Board of California (the “Board”), a ten-member board composed of growers and handlers nominated by the industry … Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 453 (D.C.Cir.1999) (citation omitted). Likewise, plaintiffs' reliance on Arbaugh v.

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. National Labor Relations Board

694 F.2d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 30, 1982

United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Southland Manufacturing Corp.

375 F.2d 325 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 23, 1967

375 F.2d 325 UNITED HATTERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. … Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 379 U.S. 203, 216 , 85 S.Ct. 398 , 13 L.Ed.2d 233 ; N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 346 , 73 S.Ct. 287 , 97 L.Ed. 377 ; Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N. L. R.

Mitchell v. District of Columbia

736 A.2d 228 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1999

See also Brown v. … .”); Mack v.

San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers v. N. L. R. B

509 F.2d 537 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 29, 1975

(BNA) 2843 , 166 U.S.App.D.C. 204 San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, v. N. L. R. B. No. 73-2259 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 1/29/75 1 N.L.R.B. AFFIRMED

Jones v. Thompson

953 A.2d 1121 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2008

See Brown v. George Washington University, 802 A.2d 382, 385 (D.C.2002) (“ ‘[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmov-ing party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. … See, e.g., Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 , 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983) (discussing requirements of due process in relation to tax sales); District of Columbia v.

Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio, Local 576 v. National Labor Relations Board, Sam & Ed's, Inc., Clinton Foods, Inc., Intervenors. National Labor Relations Board v. Clinton Foods, Inc., A/K/A Morton's Iga Foodliner

663 F.2d 223 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 31, 1980

P 12,478 AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 576, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Sam & Ed's, Inc., Clinton Foods, Inc., Intervenors. … Alexander Dawson, Inc. v. NLRB, 586 F.2d 1300, 1304 (9th Cir. 1978). See also NLRB v.

John B. Haralson and Ben Milam Savings & Loan Association v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board John B. Haralson and Mercury Savings Association of Texas v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board John B. Haralson v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board John B. Haralson v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board

837 F.2d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 1988

HARALSON and Ben Milam Savings & Loan Association, Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD, et al. John B. HARALSON and Mercury Savings Association of Texas, Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD, et al. … HARALSON, et al., Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD, et al. John B. HARALSON, et al., Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD, et al. Nos. 86-5363, 86-5364, 86-5671 and 86-5672.

Jones v. Delaney

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2009

Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276; see also Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Plaintiff pleads under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a right of action for deprivation of civil rights. … See F.D.IC v.

Capital Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, City and Chamber of Commerce of Toledo, Ohio, Intervenor

281 F.2d 48 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 11, 1960

We think the Board has properly construed the Act. … Capital, however, has never put forward an alternate proposal and, on the facts of this case, we think the remedy falls well within the Act and the Board’s discretionary authority. See Jacob Siegel Co. v.